Pages

Monday, January 10, 2011

Gun Control in Korea

I came across this passage on Wikipedia and it startled me: "In South Korea, it is a capital offense for anyone not related to military to own or distribute firearms" Is this true?

Clinging to my guns and religion

Dear CtMGaR,

No, it is not true. (As the Korean said repeatedly, please don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to discussions about finer points of Korean life.) But owning or distributing firearms in Korea is definitely against the law. Consequently, there is virtually no guns available to civilians, except for hunting rifles. (We will get to that in a bit.)

This question jumped the line in light of the terrorist shooting in Arizona. The Korean wants to make a clear point here: it is eminently possible to eradicate guns from a society -- even in a society where nearly every single adult men are familiar with guns (during their military service.) And eliminating guns from a society is easier than eliminating crazy people.

Here is how gun regulations work in Korea. Guns are regulated along with all weaponry, which are in three categories: guns, knives and explosives. Guns include all firearms and air- and gas-powered rifles. Knives with blades longer than 15 cm (about six inches!) are also regulated. Separately, pepper sprays, tasers and crossbows are also regulated. Importantly, even the mock weapon that have no capacity of hurting anyone is regulated the same way. (Sometimes, this provision actually prompts complaints from Korean movie directors about the red tapes through which they must wade in order to film war movies.)

First, the manufacturing. No one who has been convicted of a crime and received a jail sentence (including suspended sentence) can enter into manufacturing of any weaponry. People who want to import, export or sell weapons have to receive a permit from the local police office. Again, you cannot sell weapons if you are a convicted criminal who received jail sentence.

Second, possession. Everyone requires a permit from the police office to own a gun. The following types of people cannot legally own a gun:

- People under age 20, except for a training athlete with a permit.
- People with impaired mental capacity, including those who have been convicted of drug addiction.
- People who committed crime and received a jail sentence (including suspended sentence.)

All other people may own a gun with a permit from the police office, renewable every five years. The permit is essentially a license, and one has to take classes on gun safety in order to receive a permit. If you own a gun without a permit, the maximum penalty is 2 years in prison. If you lost your legally owned gun, you must report to the police immediately. If a person happened to find a gun on the street, she is required by law to report it to the police within 24 hours of discovery.

In practice, only hunters own guns in Korea. (And hunters are not many in Korea.) By regulation, hunters cannot keep their guns all the time -- they must keep their guns at the police station during off-season. Handguns are pretty much nonexistent among civilians.

If a gun-related incident does happen in Korea, it is pretty much limited to the weapons procured from the military one way or the other. For example in 2005, a private who was not adjusting well to the military life threw a grenade and fired his rifle into his barracks, killing eight and injuring two. (He was arrested and sentenced to death.) -EDIT 1/11/11- As commenter Adeel pointed out, the worst gun-related murder in Korea happened in 1982, when a renegade police officer stole two rifles and seven grenades from a nearby military base. He went on an all-nighter rampage over four rural villages, killing 56(!) people before blowing himself up with a grenade. He was able to do this by first killing the telephone operators for the village, cutting off communications with the outside world. (Goes to show how far back Korea was -- in 1982, rural villages still had switchboard operators.)

The example to closest to the Arizona shooting that the Korean could think of -- in a sense that a civilian attacked a public official with a legally obtained ranged weapon -- is an incident in 2007, when a person shot with a crossbow a judge who ruled against him. The judge only suffered minor injuries, and no one else was hurt.

Obviously, getting America's gun regulation to Korea's level would be a difficult task, because Korea's history has no element like America's historical relationship with guns. But know this: when gun advocates say something like "Psychopaths will find a way to kill with or without guns", they are blatantly lying. Despite filled with people with famously fiery temper, Korea has never suffered a mass murder like the ones happened in Columbine or Virginia Tech, in which civilians were able to kill scores of people with legally obtained guns. In fact, on occasions when Koreans manage to get their hands on guns, they plainly show that Korea's low, low crime rate is not because Koreans are angels. So what is easier to believe -- that Korea is completely devoid of nut cases, or Korea is completely devoid of guns?

Got a question or comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

"But know this: when gun advocates say something like "Psychopaths will find a way to kill with or without guns", they are blatantly lying."

2003: Kim Dae-Han set fire to, and killed 198 in the Daegu subway. This one I remember vividly because my grandmother took that subway the same day. That's more than anyone with a gun, as far as I know.

2004: A John Doe, who was a mental patient, killed FIVE fellow patients and left five more in critical condition.

2009: Jeong Sang-Jin killed SIX people using fire and knife, and injured 7 more.

And these were all without guns.

In addition, these are only the really recent ones, and I haven't even included serial killers like Jeong Nam-Kyu (2004-2006), Kang Ho-Sun (2006-2008), and Yoo Young-Chul (2003-2004).

As you may know, Japan has also had similar extremely heavy gun control since the end of WWII, and they have even more rampage killers and serial killers than Korea.

Rampage killers:

1991: Nishikawa Masakatsu stabbed and strangled FIVE women to death.

1995: Asahara Shoko (aka Matsumoto Chizuo) killed 12 people and injured many more using Sarin gas.

1998: Hayashi Masumi killed FOUR people with arsenic.

1999: Zoda Hiroshi killed TWO people by stabbing them with a knife.

2000: Takeda Yasuo killed FOUR of his own family members through strangulation.

2001 Kobayashi Mitsuhiro killed FIVE co-workers by burning them to death.

2001: Takuma Mamoru killed EIGHT people in the Osaka school massacre by stabbing them with a knife.

2008: Kanagawa Masahiro stabbed TWO people to death and injured at least seven others.

2008: Kato Tomihiro ran over and stabbed SEVEN people to death, and injured 10 others.

Again, these monsters killed all those innocent people without a single gun. I'm not even going to try and list all the Japanese serial killers and murderers because there's so many.

So, your point makes no sense. Even without guns, Koreans and Japanese are just as capable of deadly rampage killing and smaller-scale murders. But, as you may have noticed, Japan has a lot more shit going on than Korea. This should tell you that culture and society is more of a factor than what type of weapons are available to the general public.

How is he selectively quoting? Stats seems pretty close to reality to me. If you're saying virtual gun ban result in no shooting with legal guns, well, duh! That's like saying United States has no crime committed because of legal crack cocaine and claim you still can get legal crack cocaine if you're licensed drug researcher so it's not a total ban.

Restricting some inanimate object is easy, but if the goal is to make the society safer, it does nothing. How safe would you have felt in LA during the riots of 1992? Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time, there was real threat that thugs would spill into residential areas to haul Koreans out to be beaten and killed. Indeed, some were beaten for being Korean in some LA freeways at the time, which was reported shortly afterward, but never after (fear of backlash?). As KoAm, guns must always be a strong part of our lives.

US have about 7 times Korean population. Does it have about 7 times mass killings? From above stats, yes. Given that guns or no guns result is similar rate, I'd rather be in a society that allows freedom. Think of it this way. Would you rather live under a government that doesn't trust you to have guns (guilty, period!) or that gives you the freedom to do as you wish as long as you're not hurting others (innocent until proven guilty)?

The Korean: "You would do well to read the sentence following the one you selectively quoted. The point is that, in Korea, there has been no mass shooting with legally obtained guns." Well if there have been mass murders WITHOUT them being shootings with legally obtained guns, then the statement which was made that people cannot kill as many people if guns are banned is false. The full statement was: "But know this: when gun advocates say something like 'Psychopaths will find a way to kill with or without guns,' they are blatantly lying. Korea has never suffered a mass murder like the ones happened in Columbine or Virginia Tech, in which civilians were able to kill scores of people with legally obtained guns." The main point of the full statement was that more gun control equals less deaths and people cannot kill as many people without guns. It was this point that the Unknown Korean demonstrated to be false, so the Unknown Korean was not selectively quoting.

If you're simply thinking in terms of numbers, remember that the United States is the third most populous country, with 6 times as many people as Korea. Therefore, it would only be reasonable to start with the good assumption that there are 6 times as many mass murderers as Korea. Since there are 6 times as many mass murderers, mass murders will happen 6 times more often. Therefore, if mass murders happen 6 times more often in the United States than in Korea, this only means that the murder rate (murders per 100,000 people) is the same in both countries. Also, where there are 6 times the number of people, there will be 6 times the number of big cities and schools and therefore 6 times the number of opportunities for murderers to kill masses of people. And, if the Unknown Korean's list is accurate, there HAVE been mass murders such as the burning of the Daegu subway which have been committed WITHOUT guns, meaning that mass murders happen regardless of whether or not guns are banned.

Koreans, by large, are absolutely against guns and arms control. I can't remember ever hearing stories of an armed civilian taking hostage and killing someone in Korea. Have you? I am talking about civilians?

Even robberies make the front cover of the news paper in Korea. Its probably one of the safest country in the world, albeit we got our neighbors in the north we have to deal with. But thats another animal.

I would have to say, as an immigrant living in the US for 20 years or so, Americans are more violent than non and Koreans are more non-violent than violent.

Koreans fight in the streets like any other countries around the world, but they dont resort to bringing a gun to settle their disputes. Or, at least, Ive never heard of such instances.

This is somewhat relevant, but not completely irrelevant. Among Asians, based upon my experience, Vietnamese and Cambodians are the most dangerous Asians I've ever encountered. I was at a Korean bar in D.C. with a Korean-friend of mine, and there was a fight between a group of Viets in the restaurant. Soon after, one of the Viets pulled out a gun in middle of the bar and started waiving uncontrollably. I was scared for my life. I couldnt believe it. That was the first time I've ever seen a live gun ever.

Moreover, Koreans think that Americans passion for guns is crazy. Although I wouldnt say Koreans

South Korea doesn't share a land border with a country that would try to smuggle guns into it. Korea is also much smaller then the U.S., so it is easy to keep an eye on the places that people make guns.

Guns are a century old technology, and are a lot easier to make than one would think. I could drive down to any home improvement store and buy all the things I need to make a gun. All it takes to make an AK-47 knockoff is the right amount of mettle, knowhow, a portable forge, and a hammer.

So trying to keep weapons out of circulation works in Korea, It would not work in the U.S. You would need a closed border, government eyes in every mettle shop and private residency that could potentially be used to manufacture a gun, and confiscation of the guns already owned by U.S. citizens. Which is only a little under 50% of a population numbering 300,000,000.

And yes, this kind of tragedy is rarer in South Korea, but it is also rarer in Switzerland. Which leads me to believe it only happens here more because their are more people here for things like this to happen two. :(

Waaait a minute. Which way is gun smuggling going? Honest question because as far as I know all/the majority of guns being smuggled across the border are coming from the worlds number one weapons manufacturer (the US).

Also, just because you could make a weapon doesn't mean you would. Every psychopath bent on mass murder could just pull a timothy mcveigh but by and large they don't.

...also, Switzerland is not a good go to for supporting american gun rights culture.

No, that is not accurate. Even the FBI disputed this, saying that more than 90% of the guns used by the Mexican cartels do not come from the U.S. (except of course, those from the Fast and Furious debacle).

it's a little more complicated than you may think: south korea has a lower violent crime rate for SEVERAL reasons. it's not just because of the gun laws- but that definitely is a big part of it. CULTURE has alot to do with it. they are more educated and family oriented. also, the korean peninsula is very small compared to the u.s.. you should not compare the two with regards to "stats" etc. it makes more sense to compare large cities in each country- busan & seoul vs L.A. & NYC makes more sense..

Dear Clearly, I own weapons and I think most religions are B.S. I really wish the Christians would stop screwing up my nation. I am also a Veteran of the military. You don't dare scream all the right-wing BS of the Teaparty in the Army, you get court marshalled

I'm a wicked Tea Party Christian and I'm totally lost on your argument that religion is brought into the politics of gun control. Lib, you are a typical liberal hater on conservatives and Christians. You and I both know it, and neither of us is going to change.

South Korea doesn't share a land border with a country that would try to smuggle guns into it. Korea is also much smaller then the U.S., so it is easy to keep an eye on the places that people make guns.

The Korean government is not monitoring every shop for guns. It just requires permits to sell them. The U.S. can do the same thing. Most Americans get guns from legal AMERICAN outlets.

Guns are a century old technology, and are a lot easier to make than one would think. I could drive down to any home improvement store and buy all the things I need to make a gun. All it takes to make an AK-47 knockoff is the right amount of mettle, knowhow, a portable forge, and a hammer.

Most people will not go to all that trouble to obtain a gun. They would not have the know-how to do so. There would be far less people with guns in the U.S. if that were required.

So trying to keep weapons out of circulation works in Korea, It would not work in the U.S. You would need . . . . confiscation of the guns already owned by U.S. citizens.

The U.S. government can do that, but it will not be able to get all the guns out there. It will, HOWEVER, reduce the amount of gun violence. And the reduction itself is significant.

And yes, this kind of tragedy is rarer in South Korea, but it is also rarer in Switzerland. Which leads me to believe it only happens here more because their are more people here for things like this to happen two. :(

No. That would mean that there should be a comparable rate of gun violence PER CAPITA for Korean and Switzerland, but that is not the case.

I agree with not selling guns to the mentally ill. However, in this case in Arizona, the shooter never got an official diagnosis- his school told him to go get mental health evaluation, and he chose to drop out instead. His internet presence clearly suggests schizophrenia, the guy who sold him the gun could not have possibly known that.

Your point that "eliminating guns from a society is easier than eliminating crazy people" is the clearest and most sensible statement I've read on gun control and makes far more sense that more statues designed to restrict guns from designated classes of "crazy" people.

While I respect the Korean I must take issue with your arbitrary comment regarding the tragedy in Tucson. I've lived in Arizona for thirty years an am proud of my state. We have been the subject of a political witch hunt since the Obama administration took office (2 more years and he'll be gone, thank God). They are using this tragedy is another excuse for them to interfere with freedom of speech in this country. I don't believe in conspiracies (that's the domain of the extreme left these days) but one could make an argument for a "Manchurian Candidate" plot cooked up by some of Obama's radical associates back in Chicago, and putting this kid up to doing it. Silly, I know.

But not as silly as the current frenzy fueled the the main stream media that apparently even the Korean has bought into.

The gunman in Arizona was clearly a psychopathic individual acting on his own. He was not a terrorist. A real terrorist, the Islamic Army Major who gunned down 13 of his fellow soldiers was is getting much different treatment. the Obama administration has bent over backwards to call him anything but what he is, an Islamic terrorist. Funny how that works now isn't it.

The problem with the recent incident is how easy it is in AZ for a guy like the perp to get a gun, without a permit, or psych evaluation, etc.

I've been doing some research on gun permits and regulations in different states, related to my work, and the data clearly show that the stricter the gun control is in a given state, the fewer homicide and suicide deaths by firearm there are. States across the US have different levels of gun control, ranging from quite strict in states like NY and MA, to almost non-existent as in AZ. The sad trend is that NRA folks have pushed and won their grounds recently in Chicago and TN. Bringing a concealed firearm to a bar sounds like an excellent idea - though the law says the person carrying the gun is technically not allowed to drink, but who goes to a bar and not drink?

It's really not about how big and populous the US. Sure, we'll always have illegal guns coming from Mexcio, but what about Canada? other European nations? It's really the old American notion of a free man, blab blah that is holding us back from having a stricter gun control.

I stand corrected, and will comment on the topic. Confiscating guns and restricting their use will not change human nature. Humans are flawed creatures and will always find ways to harm or kill each other. Restricting the possession of guns to the military and police will not change this fact. Recent history has shown that in extreme situations a repressive government will, given the opportunity, use excessive force against an unarmed population with horrendous results. Gwangju 1980 and Tianamen Square in 1989 are two notable examples of this. The American Revolution is another example of a repressive government taking up arms against civilians but the citizens in that case, were armed. And we all know how that turned out.

how do you explain Japan, which seems to have similar anti-gun laws, yet has more than 33% of US's population?

- Homogenous population, island (easier to regulate access) and as for violence statistics that is a fuzzy area since you can play with statistics.

Recently, there was a nasty stabbing (man ran on the bus) in Toride, Ibaraki, the year before that another one in Yamagata, then there was the guy who went crazy running around Akihabara killing several people, the one in Kyushu, and on and on. This all in the span of the three years I was in Japan.

Yet somehow Japan has a low crime rate? Strangely the stabbing in Yamagata barely got mentioned except in local news. Be careful with crime rates. It matters how much is actually reported.

The problem with America is that we reward criminals for their behavior and punish innocent victims.

For example this gun law. We rewarded the criminal because he's only going to get perhaps 20 years in prison, plea mental insanity, etc. Then we punish the innocent by saying we need stricter gun laws when clearly guns aren't the problem here.

The questions people should ask is:

1) How come said person never got mental help despite the fact that he went through the legal system numerous times and clearly he was mentally ill? It was a matter of time before he done something to himself or someone else.

2) How come we don't severely punish criminals? If we had mandatory death sentences for any murder by gun, then people wouldn't go shooting. If we had laws where we severely beat, publicly humiliate, or even hold a public execution, it would prevent any copy cat from doing it.

In all America's problem is that we reward criminals for their dumb behavior. We shouldn't do that. Other countries would immediately kill people who do this type of crime. It's not about gun control or anything of the likes. It's about what sort of punishment they get, and they get none while victims are left to suffer.

Great call Dan. We should punish the criminals and reward innocent people. So let's take away the guns from the criminals, and put the innocent people in jail for 20 years. That sounds like a great idea.

You fall into the trap of comparing firearms ownership rates to firearms deaths. This comparison is intentionally pushed by gun control advocates to show guns in a bad light, especially since nearly 50% of firearms deaths are suicides (not usually considered to be a crime).

In reality, if you compare all murders or all crime rates (with and without firearms) to firearms ownership, the comparison disappears. Guns are used by criminals to commit crimes, but they are also used by law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals. In the US, this is at least 100,000 times a year, and could be as much as 2 million times a year depending upon who conducted the survey. In many cases, the defensive gun use succeeds without a shot being fired. The criminal decides to seek an unwary victim elsewhere, such as a Korean :-)

I only joke about the last statement. In reality, Koreans in the US have a low crime rate AND are heavily armed. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_armed_resistance_in_the_Los_Angeles_riots

You might reconsider the relationship between guns and crime. Gun Control only affects law abiding citizens who are not the problem. It disarms them and leaves them defenseless against criminals. Criminals on the other hand, don't care about gun control laws. They routinely commit other crimes that are much worse, like murder, rape and robbery - against disarmed citizens. This is the great truth of gun control which has become widely known in the US in the last twenty years. From a peak in the early 1990s, the crime rate in the US has dropped steadily to HALF of what it used to be. During this same period of time, gun laws have been liberalized, more citizens carry guns and the number of guns in private hands has increased from 200 million to 300 million. It's hard to argue with this basic fact.

The problem with the Atlantic article is that it doesn't separate the types of gun deaths.

For example, Korea and Japan have very high suicide rates, despite their lack of guns, but here the Atlantic has lumped a large number of gun-implemented suicides in the US (about half of the total) into our "gun deaths", making it appear that its the guns that are the problem - not so.

Also, it doesn't subtract deaths of bad guys attacking good guys in self defense or police actions, so it's misleading.

It also doesn't address the race issue - if you single out whites or asians in the US population e.g., then both the crime-comitting and victim rates are much much lower.

For a more rigorous study see:International Journal of Epidemiology 1998:27:216

" Kleck found "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate in the largest sample of nations available to study this topic. (Associations with the total suicide rate were even weaker.)" (Targeting Guns, p 254.) "

Ok, pro-gun folks. Purely out of curiosity, a question for you guys: what did you think about Korea's gun laws? Not the actual practice or regulations, but the law itself. So let's not consider having to check the hunting rifle at the police station during non-hunting season, just that criminals cannot manufacture guns and requiring a renewable license to possess a gun. Would you be in favor or against having that type of law in America?

I would not be in favor. Few reasons, first, this assumes that people intent on doing harm are intent on following regulation. Second, it would assume that the traditional interpersonal interactions and societal base that is present in Korea is the same as it is in the United States.

It would also go against our founding documents and principals, of letting a government decide what is best for the people, instead of the other way around.

I am stunned at how quickly the South Korean people have forgotten what happened in the early 1950s. I would think you would all be armed to the teeth, and training together on a regular basis. Keep your gun control. I'd like to see some other nation try to occupy the U.S.

The biggest problem with your premise is you leave culture virtually unmentioned, and that is the primary difference between Korea and America. And I'm not just talking about our gun culture, but EVERYTHING. You cannot compare two ridiculously different countries and assume that because something works in country A, that it would work the same in country B.

I went to Japan some years back with my friend's band (never been to Korea, bear with me), and I was blown away by just how much safer it is there. When we were loading our gear into the clubs, we didn't need to leave anyone watching the van ... we didn't even need to close the doors. Nobody steals anything there. One club we played was so small that the bands sold their merch on tables outside, and the bands left their equipment outside on the sidewalk. When bands played, everyone went inside to watch, and just left all their shit out on the sidewalk unattended. Nobody took anything. The next morning after one of the shows, I woke up at 7am and decided to go for a walk and ended up back near the club. I saw a shirt and some CDs on a bench that had been purchased at the show the night before, and inadvertently left there. They sat there all night with nobody taking them. There's no gum stuck all over the subway, there's no garbage littering the streets. People respect authority, appear to respect each other more (wearing masks when they are sick so as not to get other people sick), and respect public property.

I am guessing that Korea and Japan are much more similar to each other (especially since Japan stole all of it's culture from the superior Koreans :) than Korea and America are. Saying "gun control works in Japan" does not mean it would work in America, because we are too different culturally. So the same goes for Korea.

Korean and Japanese communities in the US—although able to get firearms just as easily—retain their exceptionally low crime rates. They can get guns, but they just don't want them. It's their culture, not the laws they are living under.

Also, you concentrate on "firearm deaths" instead of total deaths. You're implying that since "firearm deaths" are lower in states with restrictive gun control laws, lives are saved. But what matters is not "firearm deaths" but total deaths—that is to say, if the firearm homicide rate goes down after gun control measures are passed, but the total homicide rate stays consistent, then all you have done is changed the method that people are using to commit homicide. Same goes for suicide—in Japan, where guns are not available, firearm suicide rates are very low, but their overall suicide rate dwarfs many countries where guns are readily available. Both Australia and Canada passed significant gun control legislation—firearm suicides dropped noticeable. But they were almost completely replaced by an upsurge in hangings.

If gun control effects only method of death, and not overall death rates, then gun control is, in effect, accomplishing nothing. That's why looking only at firearm homicide rates and firearm suicide rates is misleading, to say the least.

Passing Korean-style gun laws would not turn the United States into Korea.

The Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) rates US states with a gun law rating. That rating is based on the number and type of gun laws in that state, such as background checks, mental health checks, concealed carry regulation, etc. The higher the LCAV rating, the stricter the gun laws for that state.

At the top, the #1 ranked LCAV state is California, the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. With 19.5% household firearm ownership, they have an 8.98 per 100,000 gun death rate. Near the bottom, the #48 ranked LCAV state is Vermont, with almost no gun control laws to speak of—you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. With 45.5% household firearm ownership—more than twice that of California—they have an 8.38 per 100,000 gun death rate.

It's almost as if firearm homicide and firearm suicide have more complex causes than mere firearm availability, or something.

Thank you for your thoughtfulness and respect on this topic. You are one of the most measured, diligent thinkers on the internet, and it's very interesting to hear your perspective.

However, I would like to make a point that no one else has made yet.

The primary rationale for the second amendment was NOT for defense against crimes (theft, rape, etc.). Rather, the "right to bear arms" was recognized as a defense against tyranny. That is, a defense against the government.

I believe in gun ownership, not because I'm afraid of a robber, but because I'm afraid of a Kim Jeong-Il.

The problem is that, in a society where the citizens have no guns, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT HAS GUNS.

Thank you for the kind words, but the Korean respectfully disagrees for two reasons.

First, having guns will not stop tyranny. If American government truly wanted to turn tyrannical, no one's handgun, or even a semiautomatic will stop the bombers and tanks.

Second, having guns is not a prerequisite for stopping tyranny. Egypt is in the process of escaping from tyranny, and it has no guns involved. South Korea escaped from tyranny, and it required no guns. In fact, the lack of guns helped Korea's democratization intense but relatively bloodless. The one time guns WERE involved -- in Gwangju, 1983 -- it ended in a government massacre.

Please tell that to the !. TALIBAN.....no aircraft, no tanks, still fighting 2. Iraqi insurgents.....no aircraft, no tanks, still killing 3. French resistance.......no aircraft, no tanks, killed germans 4. Viet cong............no aircraft, and until north vietnam invaded, no tanks.................outlasted usa 5. Mexican cartels.........no tanks, or military aircraft.............control large sections of mexico 6. Gangs, in USA, control neighborhoods,kill enemies........ 7. checnya.........no tanks, no planes, still killing russian soldiers to this day..still striking in russia itself.........aa russia that is far more brutal than the us gov. ever dreamed of being.....using "tanks and planes" People who claim citizens armed with small arms can not "stand up" to government show their complete ignorance of history, and weapons. The US military would not be likely to use b52s or armored divisons in their own towns and cities. That turns the population against you. And insurgents, who are skilled, dont stand around outside wearing "insurgent" on their shirt. Government facilities are targeted. Government employees ( who live in the community) are sometimes kidnaped or killed. An insurgent group fights in the shadows. Most people who spout the "dumb americans couldnt fight the government" are actually just stupid, but some spout it, knowing it is complete rubbish. Bottom line,, americans have our rights, that we won fighting the greatest military power in the world. We dont want koreas peasent culture, or japans, or the european bled white socilist "utopia'... Keep your "reasons" We will keep our guns. MOLON LABE

Overall, the Korean just does not understand the tyranny concern from some Americans. We live in the most advanced democracy in the world. Our tradition of democracy is one of the longest in the world. Our government is us, not some aliens or foreigners. Why are we so afraid of our own government?

Why are we so afraid of our own government? BECAUSE our government is us hahaha ... we have a whole lot of ignorant, hateful and uneducated people in this country. Being a democracy does not guarantee anything. Hitler was elected, after all.

...why don't Korean movie directors just go to a toy store? Korean toy guns are SUPER realistic-looking (to someone like me with no specific knowledge about guns and from a country where squirt guns must be florescent colors).

Criminals, mentally unstable individuals, and minors should not be able to purchase firearms.

Woo Bum Kon obtained his weapons from the military illegally and could have been stopped by a gun owner with the will and knoweledge to use one.

The people who obtain guns illegally are the ones you don't want having guns. To provide protection from these disturbed individuals, armed law-abiding citizens are the best defense. Unarmed citizens are soft targets to them.

Switzerland and Kennesaw, GA are good examples of places which require guns and have lower than average crime rates.

The US never suffered from dictatorship resulted from a military take over of the government like South korea has nor massacre of 100s of citizens by the government such as in Kwang Ju in 1980. Would this have happened if the people had arms to fight back? If the common North Koreans were armed, would there be such brutal dictatorship for decades where people live their whole life never ever seeing a single day of freedom?I am sure they have very effective gun control systems and no gun related crimes in N Korea, communist China, middle East nations and anywhere they have oppressive regimes. I wonder why.

"The idea that armed citizenry can defeat the advances of tanks, jets and paratroopers is silly."

It really is only based on the intents and goals of the military force—if a brutal dictatorship, answerable to nobody, decides it wants to massacre the citizenry, it will often be able to do so regardless of whether or not they are armed.

On the other hand, if the armed forces are answerable to a democratic institution, or if they're intent is not massacre but suppression or mere control—that is to say, if they must avoid indiscriminately murdering women and children and/or destroying infrastructure—then an armed citizenry can hold them off, sometimes indefinitely.

Our heaviest casualties in both Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan were not from regular army, tanks, jets, etc, but from ragtag bands of informally trained citizen-soldiers usually armed only with rifles and some homemade explosive, booby traps, etc.

We have the tanks and jets, but if we're not willing (or able) to use them brutally, then they're very ineffective against lightly armed guerilla bands.

"Citizens of Gwangju were heavily armed, because they raided the armory. The idea that armed citizenry can defeat the advances of tanks, jets and paratroopers is silly."

Good point, but I would argue that the people of Gwangju raided the armory after the situation had already escalated and the massacre had started, and not prior to the activation of martial law. Raiding of the armory by the citizens was not something the military government could have predicted.

I don't know if the government would have done the same knowing the people may have the means to protect themselves.

The military urged the Gwangu citizens to voluntarily give up their weapons and turn them in.

Of course, the protesting students at Kent State were pacifists ... definitely no worry about them being armed :)

Police shoot civilians all the time in the US—the point is not "The state will never do anything wrong if Americans own guns," but rather something along the lines of "It would be much harder for an oppressive dictatorship to take hold in the first place."

the point is not "The state will never do anything wrong if Americans own guns," but rather something along the lines of "It would be much harder for an oppressive dictatorship to take hold in the first place."

The former Yugoslavia—where my grandfather is from—did not have the long history of democracy or established democratic institutions that we have here ... it's not a very good comparison—it's not like they were a democracy for 400 years and then all of a sudden dictatorship took over.

Thus is the problem—for both sides of this debate—with comparing us to other countries: we're not really like any of them, and they're not like us.

My point is this: being a democracy does not guarantee anything—dictatorship could try rise up in this country—but there's no way of telling what would happen by looking at what has transpired in other countries, our cultures are too different.

Personally, I do not own guns as protection against my government, just as protection against my fellow citizens :)

It is a relief to know that Korea has not suffered gun crime, not the way America has. It has suffered invasion from Japan though and there were war crimes committed. What were they? The run-of-the-mill kind of horror, that war is noted for. The Japanese were noted for their cruelty, with acts such as: lining up a row of people and shooting them, to see how many a single bullet would kill.The Japanese also liked to torment people, such as, gutting them with bayonets. Then the death was long and tormenting. They took cheer in tossing Korean babies into the air and sticking them with bayonets.I suppose that endless other things occurred, don't you agree?You have a holier-than-thou presumption, that is inherent in you post.Korea has been on alert ever since the war. The army there patrols the fences with North Korea by a tactile method. They put their hands on the fence to see if it is intact. That is because the Northerners are crazy and are homicidal maniacs.Are you proposing that South Korea is superior to America? You've got to be kidding. Have you ever served in the South Korean Army? For instance,they are pretty brutal to anyone that falls asleep on guard duty. That is because of the constant threat of North Korean invasion.I own guns and they are for protection, against whatever I need protection from.

The point is that there is as many crazy people in any other developped countries than in the States. But only in the States these crazy people have easely and legally access to guns: hence the high death toll when those events happens...And they happen like what 2, 3, 4 times a year? What kind of protection is that? Are you at war with your neighbour or what?

I think this is a culture question and not a gun control question. My country has less gun control than the U.S.A., I can buy automatic weapons legally. But our crime rate is much lower than Korea or the USA, in fact our crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. So it's not whether guns are legal or not, but how your culture sees them!

I just want to say that most of you need to look at the bigger picture. What did Hitler and other dictators do when they came into power? They took away gun ownership. Then they were allowed to perpetrate any atrocity they wanted to. So this isn't just about supposedly lowering crime in the general populace, guns are the only way that a society can uphold it's own rights from anyone who would take them away, including it's own government. Our founders said that 'a people should not be afraid of their government, a government should be afraid of it's people'. And to address statistics, how many homes have NOT been broken into for fear that the owner has a gun? You can't put a statistic on that and almost any other one that actually matters. Guns are not the enemy.

Korea has had plenty of mass killings, this article is farce, the biggest problems with their mass killings is that they have been done by the government in the past, and the people had no weapons to fight back with, gee wonder why they couldn't fight back when the government opened fire into peaceful protests on multiple occasions. do better research. This article also says that owning and distributing is illegal, clearly not completely since there are still hunters with shotguns. I'd like to know how to get a fire arm license/permit before going to the country so that I can have mine shipped to me once there. that would be useful. Their government has a long history of attacking it's people. Not to mention extreme gang violence problems with people beaten to death or stabbed in the street. and devildogmre you make a valid point no history of guns, tiny countries that are easy to control borders, that's what makes it possible. China does it too, course they restrict how many kids you can have at the same time, and a constant martial law in effect, I don't think anyone wants China's government. @Mez Kitsu- that is true, also generally a well armed populace will decrease the overall crime rate, which your statement certainly seems to mesh with. I'd never use full auto or 3 round burst if I had it though, you run out of ammo too quickly and are too prone to miss with the follow on shots in an actual emergency situation.@the korean who stated this: I study your culture buddy, and id you ask me Koreans being able to carry fire arms would decrease your crime rates and make people a little more civil to each other. Might even solve that hot temper society issue if a few people got shot for it. Not really a fan of gun control on any level.

You're hilarious. "Do better research"? Please research what happened in the only time Korea's democratic activists fought back with guns. I'll give you a hint: it happened in a place called Gwangju, back in 1980.

What would the South Korean citizens do if the North successfully pushed past the DMZ, defeated the large majority of SK soldiers and made it's way into Seoul and the rest of SK?

Imagine a similar scenario with armed citizens.

To say that the sole reason for the reduction (and not total avoidance) of mass killings in South Korea is due to a lack of legal readily available firearms is absolutely ridiculous considering there are TONS of other variables at play which include culture, mental health, how the person was raised, etc.

You might as well assume with that logic that automobiles are responsible for car accidents, pens and computers write student's essays and stoves are to blame for why your ramen boiled over, and that if we were to get rid of these things, we'd have a reduction in these occurrences.

Your logic does not explain the situation in countries like Switzerland which have a gun to person ratio of 1:2 and they do not have mass shootings either.

What would the South Korean citizens do if the North successfully pushed past the DMZ, defeated the large majority of SK soldiers and made it's way into Seoul and the rest of SK?

How is that scenario even remotely plausible?

You might as well assume with that logic that automobiles are responsible for car accidents, pens and computers write student's essays and stoves are to blame for why your ramen boiled over, and that if we were to get rid of these things, we'd have a reduction in these occurrences.

The utility of all the items you listed (cars, pens, computers, stoves, etc.) clearly outweigh the dangers associated with them. The utility of guns in the hands of civilians do not.

Your logic does not explain the situation in countries like Switzerland which have a gun to person ratio of 1:2 and they do not have mass shootings either.

Did you know that, by law, the Swiss cannot keep bullets in their own houses? Maybe that has something to do with that.

"Did you know that, by law, the Swiss cannot keep bullets in their own houses? Maybe that has something to do with that."

No, it doesn't. First of all, that only applies to government-issued bullets for their fully-automatic machine guns (actual assault rifles), not privately owned ammunition or firearms, of which there are many. Furthermore, it is only since 2007 that the govt-supplied ammo is no longer kept in the home—prior to that it was kept in the home, and they still didn't have mass shootings.

After their military service is up, citizens have the option of keeping their rifle after the fuly-automatic capability is removed and it is converted to semi-auto only. At that point, it becomes just a regular semi-auto rifle, like the type that those here in the US want to ban from civilian ownership.

Well first of all, since they are part and parcel of compulsory military service, it's a non-starter for me immediately because I don't believe in that. Makes sense for a small country like Switzerland or Israel and it works well for them, but I certainly would not want that here.

Second, the thing to remember—which I spoke about in my initial comment here a couple years ago http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/01/gun-control-in-korea.html?showComment=1296230206457#c4555413542799752984—is that international comparisons are not terribly useful, because culture is a far greater influence on crime rates than firearm availability. The Swiss have a much more homogenous society than ours, with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and low unemployment. Adopting Swiss gun laws is not going bring our violent crime (and firearm crime) rate down to match theirs, because we are not Swiss. Adopting the complete ban on firearms that they have in Japan is not going to make American society as law-abiding and low-crime as Japan, because we are not Japanese. Adopting the ban on firearms that they have in Mexico is not going to cause our homicide rates to surge to Mexican levels because we are not Mexico. Every country and society has it's own unique set of social, economic and culture factors, and laws cannot just be copy/pasted from one society to another and be expected to have similar results.

Within our country, homicide rates have little or nothing to do with whether the gun laws are liberal or restrictive—Vermont has extremely liberal gun laws (don't even need a permit to purchase or carry a handgun) and a very low homicide rate. Chicago and DC have very restrictive laws, and high crime rates. Louisiana has liberal gun laws and a high homicide rate. NYC has very restrictive gun laws and low homicide rates. It fluctuates wildly, and culture, economics and demographics have much more to do with it than guns.

So no, I'm not interested in being forced to join the military and I don't think it's a particularly great idea to have a fully automatic machine gun in almost every American home. Because we're not Swiss.

Within our country, homicide rates . . . fluctuate[ ] wildly, and culture, economics and demographics have much more to do with it than guns.

Can you seriously say, with absolute confidence, that homicide rates have NOTHING to do with guns? If not, why do you keep insisting on distracting attention away from guns? This really is the favorite tactic by gun advocates--unable to refute the fact that guns are highly correlated with death, they distract toward other factors that cause death. It is as if they are calling to stop all efforts toward curing cancer, because heart attack is far deadlier than cancer. It makes no sense, but that's the logic you are peddling.

"Can you seriously say, with absolute confidence, that homicide rates have NOTHING to do with guns?"

That's the only thing you can respond to? I've written you fairly detailed responses, it would be nice if you'd respond to the individual points—if you think I'm wrong, tell me why and support your argument.

In any case, I said LITTLE OR nothing (probably should have just stuck with "little"—"nothing" seems unlikely) and I've come to that conclusion by looking at the evidence. People blame the Chicago homicide rate on the fact that even though firearms are banned in Chicago, they are readily available in the surrounding areas. By that logic, then the homicide rate in those surrounding areas should be just as high or higher than Chicago's. But it ain't, because mere availability of firearms isn't what makes people shoot each other.

"Why do you keep insisting on distracting attention away from guns …. toward other factors that cause death."

Nowhere have I done that, that has not been my argument in any of my comments here. Stabnshoot made an argument along those lines, and you responded to it. I then replied to your response, but the initial argument is not mine, and that's not how I approach this topic.

You are responding to a post that is more than 2 years old now. Since then, I must have written at least 10,000 more words on gun control. Take your "fairly detailed responses" and match them up to the points I already made.

"The utility of all the items you listed (cars, pens, computers, stoves, etc.) clearly outweigh the dangers associated with them."

That has nothing to do with the point he was making, which is simply that in no other situation do we blame the availability of the object for bad things that happen/are done with them, but rather, correctly blame the people who used/misused them.

And the War On Drugs has been so successful in making narcotics so hard to get that illegal drug use has virtually disappeared from the country. Please note my sarcasm—the War On Drugs has cost $1 trillion but produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs.

In any case, maybe you blame the availability of illegal drugs (an ironic situation) for the fact that people use illegal drugs, but I don't. Likewise, I don't blame cigarettes, I blame people. When someone around me is being rude and smoking in a public area around my child (and other children), I don't say to myself "Cigarettes should be banned" I say to myself "This guy is a frickin a-hole." When I used to work in NYC and junkies would come in and lock themselves in the bathroom to shoot up, I wasn't pissed at the drugs, I was pissed at the people and their terrible choices. Anything else is irrational.

So you're telling me that you blame the availability of alcohol for drunk driving? And the availability of crack for burglary? Seriously? You don't blame the individuals who break the law and make terrible choices? I find that hard to believe. And I don't think that WE as a society do that either.

"You would do well to read the sentence following the one you selectively quoted. The point is that, in Korea, there has been no mass shooting with legally obtained guns."

Well derp derp derp. All I can say to that is.......duh. Of course there hasn't been any mass shootings with legally obtained guns, because guns are illegal. I mean, come on dude. That doesn't prove your point at all. The argument is, if you ban guns, will it stop shootings or will the crazy people find a way to to shoot people anyway. Pro gun advocates will tell you they will. You just helped prove their point on complete accident.

This is like me saying "nobody has smoked a legal joint in Alabama".

Well duh. Because weed isn't legal. BUT HEY! The joint still got smoked. It's not about whether or not the thing was legal, it is about whether or not it happened.

After all, murder is illegal in Korea, is it not? Has anyone ever committed a legal murder?

Oh wow, that totally proves the gun advocate's point, right? The fact that no one in Korea has ever committed a mass murder using a legally obtained weapon, procured as if the gun was a carton of milk.

North Korea does not allow gun ownership either..yet there murder rate per capita is very high. 15.2 per 100K! Tim McVeigh and whoever the Boston Marathon bomber is have proved that we are NOT lying when we say that "psychopaths will find a way to kill with or without guns" The only point you have made is that South Koreans tend to be law abiding and have a low number of motivated psychopaths.

Oh wow, violence is rampant in a totalitarian dictatorship? What a shock! Wanna check out where U.S. places among countries of its peers? You know, the wealthy, prosperous and democratic ones? The OECD is a good proxy.

Nice blog. Just want to point out that most gun owners just see firearms as a tool. It is the best tool we got for protecting our family and ourselves. While all these statistics, theories, and arguments may be interesting and even true, they do not offer us a peace of mind. Most people would rather have some control of their lives and think they will at least stand a chance against an assailant. It's difficult to convince law abiding citizens how we cannot own or carry guns while criminals continue to have access to them. Even if you can take away all the guns from criminals, guns will continue to be the single most effective self defense tool, especially for those who are outnumbered or physically weak.

It's easy to convince people in Korea that guns are dangerous and therefore bad, but here in the US, we have plenty of access to good firearms training programs, and we understand it's good for guns to be dangerous. For if they weren't so, they'd be useless. It is my observation that many who are against guns either do not actually understand guns in a self defense role or have what I consider a unrealistic sense of security. Once they realise how the police cannot protect them from harm and learned to handle firearms proficiently and safely, their opinions tend to change. Just my observation. Best of luck.

I do respect the Korean as I respect all Koreans, because I'm a huge fan of Korea on every issue. Except gun control.Please, for the love of all that's good, look at this infographic:http://bit.ly/ZXOsLf

Alex, the U.S., through the FBI, consider only four categories as violent crimes: Aggravated Assault, FORCIBLE Rape, Murder and Intentional Manslaughter and Robbery. Robbery, Murder and Intentional Manslaughter are equal with all other developed nations (see CIA list). Now, the first two are where the numbers bias can be inserted. All assaults, including threats, are violent crimes in the developed world other than the U.S. All sex crimes (prostitution, underage sex, etc.) are considered violent too in the developed world. On the FBI data, these don't even show up as crimes. Do you know when rating the U.S. against 14 other developed European nations (1+ million is population), the U.S. is 3rd highest in total reported crime on this list. This is after variance has been accounted for (see below). However, the U.S. FBI data fails to report on threats, assault 2-4, and sex crimes other than forcible rape. Therefore, it is undetermined where the U.S. would sit in the developed world. I think it is quite possible that we may be the worst on this list. Guns do not reduce crime of any crime. It is possible it increases violent crime. As you will see in the coming information, firearms increase murder.

I keep hearing this argument from authors of this idiocy your restating (without analysis) knowing full well they have not equalized the categories before examining. One more fun fact: The FBI and CDC murder data figures are quite different by as much as 30%. Why? The FBI requests data from law enforcement. It is voluntary. The CDC REQUIRES death certificates with cause of death on the form. Ever wonder why the CDC shows 15,953 total murders in 2011 while the FBI shows 12,664 and the CDC shows 11,101 firearm murders while the FBI shows 8,583? This is why.

The variance is 26% for total murder. For firearm murder, the variance is 29%. We have a huge problem in comparing U.S. data to any other developed nation. And yet authors poorly invested in analysis with truth continue to release data with built in bias. Why do they do this? Folks buy their books and believe it. An education takes many years to acquire but, if an author can assert himself in a population thirsty for propaganda to confirm beliefs, they will do it. Financial gain is the objective. Truth and Life certainly is not.

One person used the Lott data provided to the NRA to show that Canada had 1,500% higher violent crime than the U.S. So, I extrapolated the data that the FBI ignores and removed it from Canada's data (threats, Assault 2-4, sex crimes other than forcible rape). Then I found the equivalent violent crime rate. Canada fell 14% below the U.S. Now, I had to account for the the variance in data not reported to the FBI. I used the lower of the 2 variances above.

The U.S. became 46% higher in violent crime in the four FBI categories than Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, like the CDC, is required to report all data to Statistics Canada. The data is reliable as is the CDC murder data. The U.S. FBI data is not reliable due to variance issues and limited violent crime categories.

By the way, the developed world uses strong national regulations to mimic each other. Australia, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, Portugal, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Finland all have about .9 firearms per household. This is certainly not using regulations to ban firearms. We have 2.45 per household. Of course, my question would be how many firearms will you need to hold in your hand at one time? And, really, where are those 2.45? The regulations are national and are stern. They have hurdles that work effectively. In so doing, the have eliminated the dilemma of murder that the U.S., as a developed nation, has making us appear as a war zone in the First World.

"They have hurdles that work effectively. In so doing, the have eliminated the dilemma of murder..."

Nonsense—these countries never had "the dilemma of murder" in the first place. You make it sound as if we all had equally serious homicides issues, but those countries instituted strict hurdles and "solved" their problem, whereas we have not. Those countries were never like the US in terms of murder, and gun control didn't solve their problem, because they didn't have significant problems to start with. And instituting the same strict "hurdles" here would not turn us into them, because the causes of murder are myriad and complex (mostly socioeconomic and cultural), and not simply a result of firearm availability.

In 2009 the U.S. total murder per 100,000 people were 5.48 and has remained above 5 per 100,000 even to this day annualized. Korea is 2009 was 2.9 per 100,000. So, 53% less murder in Korea in population. Mass murders are horrific but 60 individual murders are as tragic as one murder of 60. In the U.S., it happens almost twice as often in relationship to the same population number.

Search This Blog

Contribute to AAK! Wiki

TK's All-Korean Twitter

Like What You See? (Since 4/27/2011)

Hot Posts on Facebook

About TK

The Korean is a Korean American living in Washington D.C. / Northern Virginia. He lived in Seoul until he was 16, then moved to Los Angeles area. The Korean refers to himself in the third person because he thinks it sounds cool.